Ah! Poor old SA! Armageddon awaits! Total collapse is around the corner! You can hear the hooves of the four horsemen as we speak!

I've been hearing that sort of refrain since the middle 1980's - nearly forty years now - and guess what? Yep, it still hasn't happened.

Closing SAA on a R1 Trillion annual budget isn't going to make a bean of difference to whether SA is going to fail, survive or thrive as a country.

So in answer to the question posed above as to whether I would put my money into SAA. The answer is simple: if I was earning R1 Trillion per year (R1 000 000 000 000) absolutely I would. No question in my mind.

Get the business sorted and it would be, in many ways, a valuable asset for SA.

As a comparative measure, in India Income Tax is paid by 5% of the population and it represents 53% of the Govt’s annual revenue.
In the USA 40% of federal income taxes are paid by 1% of the population.
In SA 3% pay 29,6%.
Ah! Statistics - gotta luv 'em
..........

Uhmmmm....... nope
You are quoting INCOME tax in the other countries
So - then SA is 3% paying 80% .....!

Nope!

The figures quoted for India are the same as for SA, ie, 5% paying income tax and it represents 52% of that govt's revenue. In SA 3% paying income tax and it represents 29.7% of govt revenue.

As a comparative measure, in India Income Tax is paid by 5% of the population and it represents 53% of the Govt’s annual revenue.
In the USA 40% of federal income taxes are paid by 1% of the population.
In SA 3% pay 29,6%.
Ah! Statistics - gotta luv 'em
..........

Uhmmmm....... nope
You are quoting INCOME tax in the other countries
So - then SA is 3% paying 80% .....!

Nope!

The figures quoted for India are the same as for SA, ie, 5% paying income tax and it represents 52% of that govt's revenue. In SA 3% paying income tax and it represents 29.7% of govt revenue.

........ I am impressed
Now the USA ....... where did you find that fact ??

I've been hearing that sort of refrain since the middle 1980's - nearly forty years now - and guess what? Yep, it still hasn't happened.

Closing SAA on a R1 Trillion annual budget isn't going to make a bean of difference to whether SA is going to fail, survive or thrive as a country.

Uhmmmm........ Income is one - debt is another Counsellor
It sort of spoils the "income"

It is not very nice to ridicule people that are voicing concerns - perhaps they are less affluent than you - and have valid problems

South Africa - TODAY - has a debt burden of 52.000 RAND per citizen !!
Increasing by the day !

Now the refrain from the eighties was when the debt burden was very low - but the clock is ticking
And the point is - the Government need to stop spending / and increase economic activity - or this may go wrong
They need to start working on the economy and not spend disproportionate amounts of money on SOE's https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debt ... outhafrica

JK, et al, we'll have each to stay on our own side of the fence on this one. The debate is now going nowhere with the focus on ever diminishing minutiae.

Clearly you (and the other doomsayers) believe SA will implode which underpins the SAA-must-go argument, while I believe the jury is still out (as it has been for nearly 40 years) so think there's no harm at 0,5 % of the annual budget in seeing if the airline can't be made whole again.

As an aside, the USA figures (and any other numbers I've quoted) can be Googled, there's no mystery there. Niggly little nitpicking points (largely irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things) merely serve to distract from the bigger picture which I believe is adequately outlined above.

At the end of the day - only time will tell who got it wrong and who got it right ...

You don't have to be an economist to recognize the logic of your statement, JK.
Jack, let's take a look at your "bigger scheme of things" point: David Brooks argues in his book, The Social Animal, that there really are only two cultures, irrespective of race, religion, nationality etc. These are the cultures of either Success or Failure. You're either born into or drawn to one of those.
Our beloved ANC government has over the last 20 + years, proven its inability to recognize and follow good advise - such as yours, JK.
In the "bigger scheme of things," this is an example of a culture that pursues failure.
On the other hand, a small country, such as Singapore, hits far above its weight class...it's drawn to a culture of success.
Jack, fixing a culture, takes generations.
Vasbyt Maters...it's not gonna get fixed in our lifetime.

JK, et al, we'll have each to stay on our own side of the fence on this one. The debate is now going nowhere with the focus on ever diminishing minutiae.

Clearly you (and the other doomsayers) believe SA will implode which underpins the SAA-must-go argument, while I believe the jury is still out (as it has been for nearly 40 years) so think there's no harm at 0,5 % of the annual budget in seeing if the airline can't be made whole again.

As an aside, the USA figures (and any other numbers I've quoted) can be Googled, there's no mystery there. Niggly little nitpicking points (largely irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things) merely serve to distract from the bigger picture which I believe is adequately outlined above.

At the end of the day - only time will tell who got it wrong and who got it right ...

Eddie,

Perhaps the wisest thing we could do is look over the fence - to make sure we are not stuck in a confirmation bias of our own convictions....

As for the USA figures - i did - and hence the question where you got that data - it's clearly wrong in my view
(nice deflection though).

I am not advocating that South Africa is on a doomsday path as you seem to think.
I am concerned that the Government(s) of the past 2 decades are too busy kicking the can down the road - and have failed to notice - and still are failing to notice and act on the urgency to address the problems. The EFF and the like are the result of the same.

You keep referring to 0.5 % of the budget - but let's look at it in different figures.
SAA have received close to 20 BILLION support over the past 2 years or so - that is close to 1 MILLION per employee per annum to keep that airline flying at a loss - whereby every competitor seems to do better!

Now for the man living in a street with potholes / no sewage / failing electricity and a council that seems to be failing - it may resemble a government that refuses to address issues that are his reality.

They haven't technically spent taxpayer money yet, but they have committed a lot of it if the airline defaults or is wrapped up.
That would put a huge strain on the taxpayer and the public pension funds, that have bought much of the debt, so at the moment it is technically cheaper to keep it going, particularly if the new board is meeting objectives in the longer-term turnaround strategy.
At present the eskom mess and what that will do to the economy is far more troubling.

They haven't technically spent taxpayer money yet, but they have committed a lot of it if the airline defaults or is wrapped up.
That would put a huge strain on the taxpayer and the public pension funds, that have bought much of the debt, so at the moment it is technically cheaper to keep it going, particularly if the new board is meeting objectives in the longer-term turnaround strategy.
At present the eskom mess and what that will do to the economy is far more troubling.

Govt has recently had to kick in R5 billion to cover SAA debt that had matured - so it has started to cost actual money. For the rest we're obviously pretty much in agreement.

They haven't technically spent taxpayer money yet, but they have committed a lot of it if the airline defaults or is wrapped up.
That would put a huge strain on the taxpayer and the public pension funds, that have bought much of the debt, so at the moment it is technically cheaper to keep it going, particularly if the new board is meeting objectives in the longer-term turnaround strategy.
At present the eskom mess and what that will do to the economy is far more troubling.

Govt has recently had to kick in R5 billion to cover SAA debt that had matured - so it has started to cost actual money. For the rest we're obviously pretty much in agreement.

As far as I am aware PIC has not invested any money in SAA. I have feeling that their mandate prohibits it. In addition, when it was mooted over a year ago (Gigaba/Myeni) the relevant trade unions objected strongly.

As far as I am aware PIC has not invested any money in SAA. I have feeling that their mandate prohibits it. In addition, when it was mooted over a year ago (Gigaba/Myeni) the relevant trade unions objected strongly.

I stand (sit?) corrected. Was under the impression that either through bonds or PIC they have exposure to SOE's.

As far as I am aware PIC has not invested any money in SAA. I have feeling that their mandate prohibits it. In addition, when it was mooted over a year ago (Gigaba/Myeni) the relevant trade unions objected strongly.

I stand (sit?) corrected. Was under the impression that either through bonds or PIC they have exposure to SOE's.

I'm no expert on this. A very quick Google suggests not. So hopefully someone with actual explict knowledge will chip in to confirm or deny.